[quote]GreenMountains wrote:
I can’t believe you guys are arguing with the Fool. You do realize he is some teenage kid, right? How can you try to have a serious discussion with someone who thinks he knows more than all the T-Nation writers combined?
Isn’t this the same guy who said Arnold had bad genetics and he also apparently is a better guitarist than Clapton, Hendrix, Van Halen, etc, but that was another topic.
Don’t even get him started on his ?iron will? or better yet do. Rev him up and watch him go. Arnold is his biggest hero, but he hates ?drug users?. LOL[/quote]
You’re right. I responded to him too many times already.
Explain the reason why there are so many splitters who fail?
Explain the tremendous results of SOME that use TBT like HST, max stim, dogcrapp
TBT’ers
Explain why so many people fail to progress with a TBT
Explain the success of split routines.
No one has sold me yet the superiority of their choice. I see personal preferences defended with anecdotal evidence
I would propose that neither one is superior by concept or design, and that neither system has any inherent failure.
It is the people that implement them that fail.
5 star response.
I am curious how the direct arm work arguement hasn’t popped up yet in this thred.[/quote]
It probably got lost in the shuffle.
[hyperbole]
Cause you can’t have gimormous scare children arms without direct armwork/loading them indirectly through compounds. And you certainly can’t combine them, either!
[/hyperbole]
Anybody with fullbody training pics that would like to make a case for “fullbodys superior to splits for bodybuilders”… please post them following this post.
Anybody with fullbody training pics that would like to make a case for “fullbodys superior to splits for bodybuilders”… please post them following this post.
Thank you.
[/quote]
Week 8, 9lbs heavier while having lost 3lbs bodyfat. The next two weeks I lost an additional 3 lbs bodyfat while holding on to my size, see avatar.
Oh, and I gained that much muscle at the age of 38…so any of you young bucks should have no problem doing better
All kidding aside. This argument is lame. I had little results on a 3 times a week full body routine, good results oin a split and crazy results on SIX FULL BODY SESSIONS, not 3,4 but 6. That’s where the magic lies because then you can do the same volume overall as a split yet have increased frequency.
Frequency, volume and heavy ass lifting are key. Do it the best way you can! For some that’s splits for others it is high frequency full body sessions.
Do yourself a favor though next time you hit a sticking point…try something else then what you have been doing!
Anybody with fullbody training pics that would like to make a case for “fullbodys superior to splits for bodybuilders”… please post them following this post.
Thank you.
Week 8, 9lbs heavier while having lost 3lbs bodyfat. The next two weeks I lost an additional 3 lbs bodyfat while holding on to my size, see avatar.
I have to admit, dam impressive progressive progressive. I see more tricep definition, slightly wider lat’s, and you look thinner all around.
What I see is equal to or greater than what I can do, or have seen others do with a split routine. 6 days a week is a bit more than I do, but I am impressed and would consider such a routine if I could, but I could not commit to 6X week in the gym, regardless of time there.
But then again, my opinion means as much as tossing a handful of dirt on a mountain of garbage since I am a fat overweight piece of shit that comes to the gym to talk about pop stars with his wife, and doesnt make his sole purpose in life to make muscle; and therefore shouldnt even grace his eyes with these forums.
But I thought I would digress and say I do see some light toward TBT from your progress. Dam good work bro.
Anyway, I don’t recall that the following has been addressed here already:
Full body workouts don’t necessarily hit every muscle group of the body every workout and conversely split routines using mainly compound movements tend to incorporate more than just the “target muscles of the day” (e.g. narrow grip bench press for triceps, deadlift for back, etc).
What I’m trying to say is that while there is a difference, it isn’t as great as it may seem…
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
Full body workouts don’t necessarily hit every muscle group of the body every workout and conversely split routines using mainly compound movements tend to incorporate more than just the “target muscles of the day” (e.g. narrow grip bench press for triceps, deadlift for back, etc).
What I’m trying to say is that while there is a difference, it isn’t as great as it may seem…[/quote]
I agree. And I try to take advantage of that with my split routines.
I guess my prbolem with full body is that I just get so tired and the workout tends to be so long that I end up not giving the effort I would had I split it up. Perhaps part of the problem is workout design. However, I just cant see doing bench press, then moving to shoulder press, or pulley pulls, or Lat pulls, or similar, and having the strength left in my arms to exhaust te other muscles as much as I can when the parts are split.
It may just be me.
I also recall theories that your body simply cannot focus healing on more than one major body part at a time.
I am out of shape though, so my opinion is like a pile of shit you just stepped in.
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
Full body workouts don’t necessarily hit every muscle group of the body every workout and conversely split routines using mainly compound movements tend to incorporate more than just the “target muscles of the day” (e.g. narrow grip bench press for triceps, deadlift for back, etc).
What I’m trying to say is that while there a difference, it isn’t as great as it may seem…[/quote]
I don’t follow. The full body can’t be a full body without the full body being worked. Do you mean that all exercises for all body part are not done each session? I am currently using a full body routine every 36 hours in an A/B fashion. I do something for each action, I don’t like to view it as parts, but actions, like vertical pressing, horizontal pulling, etc., at each session.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Full body workouts don’t necessarily hit every muscle group of the body every workout and conversely split routines using mainly compound movements tend to incorporate more than just the “target muscles of the day” (e.g. narrow grip bench press for triceps, deadlift for back, etc).
What I’m trying to say is that while there a difference, it isn’t as great as it may seem…
I don’t follow. The full body can’t be a full body without the full body being worked. Do you mean that all exercises for all body part are not done each session? I am currently using a full body routine every 36 hours in an A/B fashion. I do something for each action, I don’t like to view it as parts, but actions, like vertical pressing, horizontal pulling, etc., at each session.
[/quote]
A good point you bring up: Splits are not necessarily body part splits, but could also focus on upper/lower body, push/pull, horizontal/vertical, etc. or any combination of those.
Anyway, to clarify my previous post:
E.g. the exercise selection of a periodized version of the Starr/Pendlay routine which definitely fits the category “full body”…
[i]
DAY1
Squat
Bench
Row
DAY2
Squat
Deadlift
Military Press
Pull-ups
DAY3
Squat
Bench
Row
[/i]
Basically, days 1 and 3 could be categorized as legs/chest/back, day 2 as legs/back/shoulders/back if one focuses on the main muscle groups as one would do designing a split routine (as I stated above, I am fully aware that compound exercises hit more than just one muscle or even muscle group). There are no exercises mainly focusing on biceps, triceps, abs, calves and days 1 and 3 lack a “shoulder exercise” while day 2 lacks a “chest exercise”.
If you’d take a split routine where someone would be doing legs/shoulders on one day, e.g.
Squat
RDL
Military press
Laterals
…
it wouldn’t be that different from day 2 of the full body routine.
Prior to a shoulder injury, I was getting great results doing a form of total body training.
4 days a week
upper body: push /pull supersets
ex; benchpress/seated rows
5-6 different combinations per session
plus deadlifts.
lower body/abs: leg/abs supersets
off day
repeat.
I was hitting upperbody twice a week and legs twice a week. Big difference from my old school training of 3 days a week chest/arms, back/shoulders, legs. I was getting results with the old school way but the TBT took it to a new level.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Full body workouts don’t necessarily hit every muscle group of the body every workout and conversely split routines using mainly compound movements tend to incorporate more than just the “target muscles of the day” (e.g. narrow grip bench press for triceps, deadlift for back, etc).
What I’m trying to say is that while there is a difference, it isn’t as great as it may seem…
I agree. And I try to take advantage of that with my split routines.
I guess my prbolem with full body is that I just get so tired and the workout tends to be so long that I end up not giving the effort I would had I split it up. Perhaps part of the problem is workout design. However, I just cant see doing bench press, then moving to shoulder press, or pulley pulls, or Lat pulls, or similar, and having the strength left in my arms to exhaust te other muscles as much as I can when the parts are split.
It may just be me.
I also recall theories that your body simply cannot focus healing on more than one major body part at a time.
I am out of shape though, so my opinion is like a pile of shit you just stepped in. [/quote]
If you’re too tire and the workouts take too long then you are doing them wrong.You can’t use the same volume on fb as splits for obvious reasons.
And even in split routines it is common to do synergistic muscle routines where you train an opposing muscle at the same time. Super sets are a staple of many workouts.
It’s simple, the more you train a muscle group avoiding burnout the faster it will develop. Arnold trained more than any other bodybuilder. Of course he offset the overtraining with steroids…But these days bodybuilders take so much juice that it’s hard to tell how much their training is influencing their physiques at all.
Try training a muscle group more often without overtraining it. What do you think will happen? It's going to grow faster.
What, does there have to be only one way? Is bodybuilding a science yet? No
[quote]Majin wrote:
It’s simple, the more you train a muscle group avoiding burnout the faster it will develop. Arnold trained more than any other bodybuilder. Of course he offset the overtraining with steroids…But these days bodybuilders take so much juice that it’s hard to tell how much their training is influencing their physiques at all.
Try training a muscle group more often without overtraining it. What do you think will happen? It's going to grow faster.
What, does there have to be only one way? Is bodybuilding a science yet? No[/quote]
“Frequency”, as it is sometimes referred to by us assholes.
[quote]Avoids Roids wrote:
Majin wrote:
It’s simple, the more you train a muscle group avoiding burnout the faster it will develop. Arnold trained more than any other bodybuilder. Of course he offset the overtraining with steroids…But these days bodybuilders take so much juice that it’s hard to tell how much their training is influencing their physiques at all.
Try training a muscle group more often without overtraining it. What do you think will happen? It's going to grow faster.
What, does there have to be only one way? Is bodybuilding a science yet? No
“Frequency”, as it is sometimes referred to by us assholes.
[/quote]
What I understood from what Go heavy was saying is that frequency won’t matter if the stress isn’t an overload or great enough of an overload to force change. He was talking about this before he left. This makes sense to me and I’m not that smart. Those marathon runners run everyday and have legs the size of chopsticks. These guys are training their legs constantly and the frequency is almost constantly. Apparently what Go heavy was saying about stress applies here. If the stress; or stressload I think he called it, isn’t great enough, then you can’t create a great enough change to stimulate enough growth. That’s how I understood it anyway.
